Hope Romanoff wins. Coffman panders to lobbyists and of course he's going to take PAC money. Have never heard Coffman say something intelligent and don't trust him at all. We need Romanoff who will actually work for taxpayers.

random-thoughts60 wrote:A career politician, Romanoff, against a veteran Marine officer, Coffman. No doubt in my mind who can best represent Colorado in D.C. Congress desperately needs military expertise, which Coffman has provided.

Romanoff could much better serve Colorado if he moved back to his home area of Denver, and ran against DeGette, a politician so clueless she doesn't even understand a bill she proposed (magazine limit).

I respect both Coffman and Romanoff on several issues yet its hard to tell if Coffman is evolving or just changing his mind to be reelected. The thing is DeGette has been consistent in her beliefs and very knowledgeable on most issues. Not knowing every component within the structure of a weapon probably resonates with most Americans on similar issues, (magazines vs clips,etc.) I'd be clueless in how to build a bomb yet I'd want legislation passed to keep those bombs out of the hands of just about everyone!

Romanoff, a friend of Pelosi, should remind all Colorado voters - "you will have to pass [Obamacare] to find out what's in it." Romaoff will support Pelosi for Speaker of the House, and we all know how much of a work of "art" she is. Yes she and Romanoff are two peas in a pod.

Romanoff is a carpet-bagging leech who has done nothing his entire life but suck off taxpayers teet. Romanoff has proven his entire career that he will serve the special interest that give him and his campaign the most money. He is the lowest, dirtiest form of politician we have.

He has no history in this district, he doesn't know the people in this district, and when he loses he will move on like a cheap carnival.

Ah, so Romanoff moved into that district not because he necessarily wants to live there, but because he wants to run for that specific House seat. Does he even know his neighbors or the population he wants to represent?

RespConsiderate wrote:Hope Romanoff wins. Coffman panders to lobbyists and of course he's going to take PAC money. Have never heard Coffman say something intelligent and don't trust him at all. We need Romanoff who will actually work for taxpayers.

LOL. You REALLY think that Romanoff is somehow different? Don't worry, he would pander to lobbyists and take money from Democrat-leaning PACs as well.

"Perhaps the difference in terms of money will be that instead of outspending his opponent 2-to-1, as Coffman did to Joe Miklosi in his narrow victory in 2012, the actual money raised by the candidates could be close to even," Kondik said.

For both of these candidates, you can't raise this kind of serious cash without making some major promises and deals to push certain agendas. The more popular vernacular is called, "Selling one's sole."

I found Novak's comment about Romanoff's time in public office ridiculous in light of Coffman's PERSONAL "SLURPING AWAY AT THE PUBLIC TEAT":

Mike Coffman is, without question, Colorado's unparalleled champion of personal public pension benefit acquisition. He's currently working on his third government pension.

Conservative Columnist Vince Carroll in the Denver Post:

" . . . Republican Rep. Mike Coffman pulls down $55,547 in a Colorado state pension." (Coffman whines about the Colorado pension system's which will most likely have a 75 percent funding ratio reported next July, while federal military pensions have a ZERO percent funded ratio.)

Vince Carroll:

"Even the original article on Coffman's pension, which appeared in the National Journal, implied that he was somehow less than forthcoming when urging his colleagues to abolish congressional pensions while failing to volunteer that he's already cashing government retirement checks."

"There is, however, one thing about Coffman's pension that does deserve more attention: its size."

"Coffman topped out at $68,500. That means his pension is currently nearly 81 percent of his highest state salary."

"Guessing the answer, I asked Coffman if he had purchased years of service from PERA once upon a time. And, sure enough, he replied, 'I did purchase years of service.'"

A comment from the Post:

"Mike Coffman's career has been carefully and artfully planned to collect as many government pensions as possible. Indeed, there is no mention in his Wiki biography of any substantial private sector employment, but I assume he'll probably end up with at least the required 40-quarter minimum ... perhaps mostly from 1983 to 1989."

"Coffman spent about 14 years in Colorado state government (1989 to 2009) in both the House and Senate, and also as Treasurer and Secretary of State. In order to get his $55K PERA benefit, I'm guessing he bought close to 15 years of service credits to get him close to the magical 30 years for a full state PERA pension."

"So, Coffman will be collecting three pension checks, along with a *reduced Social Security check (* a consequence of collecting a state pension benefit) ... not bad."

"Nothing wrong with Coffman's financial planning skills, but he has a tendency to want to close the gate (or reform) after he's entered, as evidenced in his interest in PERA reform and his recent interest in reforming the scandalous congressional pension program right after he became vested in both state and congressional pensions."

sagemeister wrote:Coffman is nothing more than a right-wing tea-party puppet who is only interested in ideological purity and appeasing his tea-party brethren then in doing what is right for working class Americans of all political parties. Coffman and his ilk are the problem in Washington today. He is going to have to try to sell his tea-party garbage in a highly competitive district and will lose.

It wasn't Coffman who told you "if you like your plan you can keep it!"

Ronanoff gets to own that come November. Along with everything else he parrots Obama on.

If you like how Republicans run government, move to Texas...!!!! ICK...!!!

MichaelJohn wrote:Obama has added over $7 trillion to the national debt in 5 years and is still running $700 billion budget deficits and you accuse the Republicans of spending "millions" of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity?

How did Obama do that? Doesn't Congress control the purse strings in our country? And isn't the deficit half of what it was when he took office?

MichaelJohn wrote:Obama has added over $7 trillion to the national debt in 5 years and is still running $700 billion budget deficits and you accuse the Republicans of spending "millions" of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity?

How did Obama do that? Doesn't Congress control the purse strings in our country? And isn't the deficit half of what it was when he took office?

Obama did that by having his kiss-a_ _ scumbag puppet Harry Reid, who controls the US Senate, not pass a budget for the last 4 years and force Continuing Resoltuions on us to keep the government running. And the budget deficits are half of the record-breaking and historical $1.5 trillion budget deficits Obama ran for 4 years straight. Under Bush, the largest budget deficit was $400 billion. Obama's are still almost twice as large with no end in sight.

Nice try but no cigar.

"Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so." ~ President Ronald Reagan

MichaelJohn wrote:Obama has added over $7 trillion to the national debt in 5 years and is still running $700 billion budget deficits and you accuse the Republicans of spending "millions" of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity?

How did Obama do that? Doesn't Congress control the purse strings in our country? And isn't the deficit half of what it was when he took office?

Obama did that by having his kiss-a_ _ scumbag puppet Harry Reid, who controls the US Senate, not pass a budget for the last 4 years and force Continuing Resoltuions on us to keep the government running. And the budget deficits are half of the record-breaking and historical $1.5 trillion budget deficits Obama ran for 4 years straight. Under Bush, the largest budget deficit was $400 billion. Obama's are still almost twice as large with no end in sight.

Nice try but no cigar.

Oh please, you must think we're stupid. The projected 2009 deficit was $1.4 trillion BEFORE Obama even set foot in office, based on BUSH'S 2009 budget following the Great 2008/9 Economic Collapse. And those deficits were directly due to the Bush tax cuts, the unfunded wars, Medicare D and the Bush economic collapse. Obama has turned things around and started digging us out of the hole. Why do you keep spreading such lowbrow misinformation? You should be ashamed of yourself.

formerunionmember wrote:Vote Independent, or vote Republican, but do NOT vote Democrat.

Why on Earth would you vote Republican? What have Republicans done for our state and our country? They done nothing but waste time and spend millions of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity.

Vote Democratic or vote Independent. Don't vote Neanderthal.

Obama has added over $7 trillion to the national debt in 5 years and is still running $700 billion budget deficits and you accuse the Republicans of spending "millions" of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity?

Obama has the smallest increases in spending of any president in our lifetime. I know Republicans are desperate to forget just how much damage was done to this country the last time we had a Republican president, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend that time suddenly started on inauguration day 2009.

MichaelJohn wrote:Obama has added over $7 trillion to the national debt in 5 years and is still running $700 billion budget deficits and you accuse the Republicans of spending "millions" of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity?

How did Obama do that? Doesn't Congress control the purse strings in our country? And isn't the deficit half of what it was when he took office?

It may be half of what it was in his initial years in office but it is still double what it was when he took office.

formerunionmember wrote:Vote Independent, or vote Republican, but do NOT vote Democrat.

Why on Earth would you vote Republican? What have Republicans done for our state and our country? They done nothing but waste time and spend millions of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity.

Vote Democratic or vote Independent. Don't vote Neanderthal.

Obama has added over $7 trillion to the national debt in 5 years and is still running $700 billion budget deficits and you accuse the Republicans of spending "millions" of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity?

Obama has the smallest increases in spending of any president in our lifetime. I know Republicans are desperate to forget just how much damage was done to this country the last time we had a Republican president, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend that time suddenly started on inauguration day 2009.

So you found a self proclaimed leftist that is writing stuff that even the fact checkers at the Annenburg project have found to be completely false. Don't worry though EVERYONE has a budget that looks pretty good when you take 2 of the presidents years of budgets and assign them to the president before you.

formerunionmember wrote:Vote Independent, or vote Republican, but do NOT vote Democrat.

Why on Earth would you vote Republican? What have Republicans done for our state and our country? They done nothing but waste time and spend millions of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity.

Vote Democratic or vote Independent. Don't vote Neanderthal.

Obama has added over $7 trillion to the national debt in 5 years and is still running $700 billion budget deficits and you accuse the Republicans of spending "millions" of tax payer dollars on worthless stupidity?

Obama has the smallest increases in spending of any president in our lifetime. I know Republicans are desperate to forget just how much damage was done to this country the last time we had a Republican president, but that doesn't mean you get to pretend that time suddenly started on inauguration day 2009.

So you found a self proclaimed leftist that is writing stuff that even the fact checkers at the Annenburg project have found to be completely false. Don't worry though EVERYONE has a budget that looks pretty good when you take 2 of the presidents years of budgets and assign them to the president before you.

I could post more links from a variety of sources, but facts aren't going to penetrate your ideology. And you don't know what the hell you are talking about in regards to the Annenburg project. So let me ask a question. Which expenditures exactly make President Obama responsible for the added debt?